Nedum

Disconnect your G2 completely from your PC, restart. Connect the G2 again, but use different Ports. You are using the dcs.exe in the bin-mt folder? Do you use any kind of tool that could limit the refresh rate (amd panel)? Try to do a fresh installation of your gpu driver or reset the settings to standard. Edit: Ok, try to disable Dirt and Flare and set it to none. Within the VR-Settings, disable Bloom.

WMR You should find it within the Settings App. Edit: And that what @BIGNEWY said: check this too, if my suggestion was wrong (change the USB-Ports too). If all went wrong, disconnect your G2 completely from the PC, restart, deinstall all WMR Software, restart the PC, connect your G2 and install all the WMR software again.

Plz check your refresh rate settings. Sounds like your Headset was set to 60 Hz

To test it, one can pick the F16 Free Flight Quick Action Mission on the Caucasus Map and test it. In 9 of 10 times you'll pick only one target if you are in TWS mode, even so 4 targets are in between the TWS scan bar. Only one target will be bugged. That behavior will stay until the targets are in a 25 Miles range. Could it be that there is something bound to IFF scan mode and the bugged Data Link and the wrong symbolic? As soon one is using the Data Link there is no way anymore to see what Tracks are System Tracks (no hollowed out yellow squares will ever been shown with the Data Link on). I have the feeling, the F16 is completely broken. Nothing works anymore in a way that was marked for years as "correct as is". And the F16 is the only AC in DCS that has a different weapon behavior, even so she is using the same hardware as other AC. All documents for the F16 can't explain that different behavior. The worst part of that is, they explain mostly a different, the old working behavior and steps to let the hardware do their work. That alone makes it's nearly impossible to know it's working like it should and how to use the Hardware, the now "correct as is" way. Mostly all the F16 documents are broken and misleading to a wrong explanation. Is there any ETA we will get working systems with the right, not misleading documents? Right now I have the feeling not even ED is knowing what is "correct as is" and some schoolers have some "fun" with the F16 module as a programmer test bed.

I tried this several times, I always have to "adjust" the target. But even so, I tried it to do it manually, the Mav D snaps to the more in the front Target until I am below 7-6 miles. And it doesn't matter the wrong target is in direct line of site or left and right but more near to me as the target of interest. At less than 6 miles, the Auto Handoff always works, even so the wrong target is now closer to the right target (angle wise). No correction using the Mav picture necessary. The Magic Border is 6 or fewer miles for a working Auto Handoff snap with a Mav D. The TV Mav is the better pick for daytime. There is something completely wrong with the Auto Handoff and the Mav D. For what is the TGP and an IR Missile good for (no matter which daytime), if the Missile snaps to targets which are 100 feet away from the line of sight off the designated target, only because they are more near to me? One can test this behavior very good with the weapon test quick action mission on the Sinai map. Try the Auto Handoff with the Mavs D. At 6 miles the Magic happens and the Mav D will lock the right target without any correction needed even the wrong target in front of the designated target is now more overlapping the target of interest. The angle got worse, so the view to the target of interest, but the "Magic" does its job. How is that possible? Explanation? More overlapping but better clearance for a target pick? What would we do without some kind of Magic. But this all away. The real questions are, why is it more complicated with the F-16 to designate and pick targets as with any other AC using the same weapon, and why wasn't it that complicated before, even it was marked for years as "correct as is"? Do we require evidence again, because evidence has changed again? Is there any explanation, why all the stuff with nearly the same hardware is working so different with the F-16, and that even so this good old working behavior was marked for years as "correct as is"? I can't wait to hear that explanation.

Hi, um deine Angabe der verwaschenen Schrift einordnen zu können, frage ich mal, ob du schon Erfahrung mit anderen VR-HS hast und ob, es in anderen Spielen deutlich besser ist, als in DCS? Hilfreich wären auch immer ein paar Screenshots von deinen Einstelllungen in DCS, ansonsten artet das hier in eine Raterunde aus. Mit Virtual Desktop wirst du immer Verluste bei derr BQ haben. Eine hochleistungsfähige WiFi-Verbindung (6G), ist da fast schon Pflicht, wenn die BQ nicht zu stark leiden soll.

The same, but with a better viewing angle and much better video quality. And to be clear, the proof we are looking for is simple physics. Why do you think the Russians use much bigger and wider tires and then even two of them at each stage? Why is the engine inlet on the MIG 29 closed for bottom loading and open at the top? There is no physics in this world that would give an F16 a chance to land on a grass surface. Not with those little narrow wheels. Not now and not in a thousand years. Physics doesn't lie.

How I understand all the statements: 1. The Viper has a new (big) INS drift and can't currently correct it by itself (no matter of the time period of the mission (GPS is working)) or (seems to be not 100 % clear) can do a self fix for the INS drift every 60 seconds. 2. Nobody knows how big (in feet) in how many seconds the INS drift of the Viper is. 3. Preplanned GPS attacks don't work anymore with the same precision as before, with only using STPT coordinates. So preplanned doesn't make sense anymore, if you want to stay high and try to use the clouds as cover. 4. A JDAM can fix the INS drift by itself 30 seconds after the release (ED seems to working on it). 5. No other Jet has an issue with preplanned bombing runs like the Viper. 6. The JDAM module can fix the INS drift a way better than the GPS module of the Viper (Viper 60 seconds for an INS drift fix, JDAM 30 seconds (future)). 7. Nobody can tell us, how it should work in which way, if something special happens and why the old "correct as is" is now "was wrong all the time". Possible Solution: The Crew Chief nails a future JDAM GPS module on the Viper. Now the Viper can fix the INS drift by itself every 30 seconds. Problem fixed and a huge upgrade for the Viper. Fun aside: I know the Viper is still in development, but I didn't buy the Viper just to get every patch a new (then) broken "function" which was working before like a charm. And this year it looks like we have that kind of "new stuff" with every new patch. The worst part is, there is absolute no documentation in which we can see how we have to use the new stuff (Fuzzes anywhere?). So we try to figure out, why a system is now "broken" (for us), investing hours of our time, and later we get a "correct as is" or "we mixed some things up and in "two weeks" you will get a fix". And if we ask for a documentation who explains all the new stuff, we get a link to the Patch Thread with e.g., "TGP: we have mixed up two different pods, to test some stuff and later this year (it's still May 2024) the things will work like they should". And to complete all the "fun" we get more "new" stuff with more things to learn without any documentation. Sometimes I have the feeling, ED wants to fool us and not funnily. We really want to work together with you (ED) and we will invest our time, so your product gets better, but you, ED, should reach us a hand and please start stopping slapping us with every new patch and changing things without any explanation and documentation. I want to have fun, not working for you!

That's not the point here. The view angle and the timestamp for both eyes are the same. The difference of how big the picture of this reflection is, is 2 times. And for me, the most important part is, this kind of reflection is always only on the right side of the canopy, never on the left side. On the left side is also a reflection, but much more shifted to the pilot direction, and really tiny. If I fly straight into the sun, the reflection should be in the middle or on both sides, but never only on one side, and for sure, never always only on one special side.

Yes, I have the exact same problem. And another one is, this kind of reflection is only on the right side of the canopy. No matter what I'd tried, I couldn't reproduce this reflection on the left side. F16 Quick Action Mission, Syria, Cold and Dark. Edit: Track uploaded. As soon you close the Canopy you can see the reflection on the right side, and no matter what I try, always only on the right side. And in VR the pictures in each eye are a way different. I have a feeling, this bug is an old one saying "Hello again". glow_f16.trk Edit 2: My reflections are not as bright as one can see in the pictures of the first posting. It seems to be a mod that makes it so bright. Nevertheless, all the said points still stay.

If I understand the posting from @Mapi right, the current "solution" is wrong, and a setting between 200 (AGL) and 20k feet (MSL) should work? Come on ED, what's going on? We need more information. Sometimes I've got the feeling a ED-dev makes big fun with us. The current situation is so frustrating.

Nope, not here. Do you use any kind of a Mod?

Ok, it's shifted with no answer. Doesn't help a bit.

Thank you, I'll take a look.

Das ist viel zu allgemein gehalten. Weder im Winter noch im Sommer bekomme ich unter der Crystal Hitzeprobleme. Das alles ist abhängig, wie warm es in den Räumlichkeiten ist und welches Headset man benutzt. Ob nun See- oder Reisekrankheit, sei dahingestellt, aber es helfen die gleichen Mittel aus der Apotheke und man kann trainieren, dass dieser Effekt komplett nachlässt. Bei mir hat es 6 Wochen gedauert, bis ich von "mir ist Übel", zu "Da war doch mal was mit Motion Sickness?" gewechselt hat. Was meinst du mit deutlich reduzieren und das mit der aktuell schnellsten Hardware? Ich höre oft solche subjektiven/ungenauen Aussagen, die den Eindruck vermitteln, dass die BQ in der VR schlecht sein muss. Ich bin gerne bereit, das Gegenteil zu beweisen, insbesondere, wenn es um sehr gute Hardwareausstattung und das machbar Mögliche in VR geht (in Bezug auf BQ). Die 8kx kenne ich nur von einem Arbeitskollegen, aber die BQ der Linsen und Displays kann nicht mal im Ansatz mit der BQ der Pimax Crystal mithalten. Das horizontale Sichtfeld ist der Hammer, der Rest ist "Steinzeittechnik", um es mal übertrieben zu formulieren. Gerade die Linsen und die Displays mit der großen Auflösung in der 8kx, um das große Sichtfeld zu erreichen, fordern ihren Tribut. Das fehlende Eye Tracking, macht es dann nicht besser. Hier wischt die Crystal mit der 8kx nochmal den Boden auf, wenn es um die erreichbare Performance und BQ geht. Mir ist durchaus bewusst, dass das zwei vollkommen unterschiedliche Konzepte sind, aber genau deshalb sollte man mit solchen Aussagen wie die deine sehr vorsichtig sein, weil sie einfach einen falschen Eindruck vermitteln können. Hast du schon mal gesehen, was mit der aktuell schnellsten HW und einer Crystal möglich ist? Ich kann dir sagen, dass der Eindruck, den du hier vermittelst, so einfach nicht stimmt.

Thank you for that. But, as far I can see on this page, It's more of the view of someone who wants to disarm the fuzzes, or did I miss a section of this page? What I am looking for is an explanation when I should use a special type of bomb and with which fuzz, and what settings for the current situation (MK84 Nose or Tail or NT, use Fuzzxy with settings xyz, because of blah blah, and so on). Wags explanation was more an overview, but we need much more details. As one can see, the "bug" reports rising because of missing information (e.g., the fuzz was set to low, but even you can do that doesn't mean this setting can work in any way).

Ich hatte mich in meinem vorherigen Post mitreißen lassen. Was davon für dich übrig bleibt, ist, dass VR immer sehr subjektiv ist. Viele lieben es, auch wenn die BQ in der VR nicht so gut ist wie am Monitor, andere kommen damit gar nicht zurecht. Und der wichtigste Satz für dich: Mit einer Quest 3 kannst du erst einmal nichts verkehrt machen. Die kleinste Speicher-Version davon sollte reichen, ein anderer Headstrap und ein Link-Kabel. Es gibt viele gute Tutorials auf YouTube. Die am besten vorher ansehen und dann entscheiden, ob dir das schon zu komplex wird. Wenn du dann immer noch der Meinung bist, du schaffst das, dann greife auf jeden Fall zu. Eine Alternative zur Quest 3 wäre eine Crystal Light. Die BQ wäre besser, aber deine "Mühle" würde dann keine bessere BQ als diejenige, die du bei einer Quest 3 hervorzaubern können, ohne dass du nur noch Ruckeln sehen würdest. Die Quest 3 bietet dir neben Sims eben noch viel mehr als eine Pimax Crystal Light. Du wirst aber vermutlich nicht darum herumkommen dir eh eine neue Grafikkarte kaufen zu müssen, wenn du in der VR von DCS Spaß haben möchtest.

Hi, wie immer, wenn es um den persönlichen Geschmack geht, werden alle Antworten sehr subjektiv ausfallen. Das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Ich könnte jetzt anfangen zu versuchen einiges, was hier geschrieben wurde, zu widerlegen, doch wäre das der falsche Ansatz, da es oft nur mein Empfinden ist. Meiner Meinung nach, kommt derzeit, was das Verhältnis von Preis und Leistung angeht, nichts an die Pimax Crystal heran. Ich besitze eine G2 (die ich nicht mehr nutze), eine Quest 3 (die ich nur für Action Spiele nutze) und eben die Pimax Crystal. Die G2 war gut und kann bis heute gegen die meisten Headsets bestehen, wenn es um die Bildschärfe im Sweet Spot und den Sound geht. Das war es aber dann auch schon. Die Quest 3 ist da eine andere Hausnummer, auch wenn sie an die Bildschärfe einer G2 nicht herankommt (physikalische Auflösung schlägt Software). Dafür hat sie aber in allen anderen (Sound außen vor) die Nase vorne. Die Rand zu Rand Klarheit, sucht seinesgleichen (nicht zu verwechseln mit der Bildschärfe). Die Farben sind besser als bei der G2. Die Quest 3 benötigt aber einiges an Zusatzkosten, um auf einen Level gehoben zu werden, wo das Spielen wieder Spaß macht. Das Headstrap ist ein Witz. Ja, man kann damit spielen, aber -und das ist kein Scherz- die Quest 3 ist vorderlastig. Trotz ihres geringen Gewichts drückt sie die ganze Zeit auf die Nase. 2 Std. Spielzeit bei "hoher" Auflösung sind kaum drin, dann ist der Akku leer. Um diese Probleme zu beseitigen, benötigt man ein neues Headstrap. Kein Genickbruch, aber auch noch mal Geld obendrauf. Alles in allem ist die Quest 3, für meinem Dafürhalten, für das Geld eine der besten, wenn nicht die beste Option für VR-Einsteiger derzeit. Wenn es (fast) wie am PC-Monitor aussehen soll: Die Pimax Crystal ist dann gleich mal ein ganz anderes Kaliber, egal worum es geht. Ob Preis, BQ oder Performance (kein Scherz) sie schlägt fast in allen Bereichen als Gesamtpaket die derzeit erhältlichen möglichen Mitbewerber. In puncto Bildschärfe, Farben, Schwarzwerte, Sichtfeld und Performance kommt keines der oben genannten VR-Heasets mit. Das Sichtfeld der Crystal ist größer als bei allen anderen der beiden HS (bezogen auf meine Kopfform). An die Farben der Crystal kommt auch keines der anderen beiden Headsets heran und die Schwarzwerte sind der Hammer (nur OLED ist besser). Auch die Klarheit der Linsen ist richtig gut. Ich muss meinen Kopf nicht mehr bewegen, um die Instrumente scharf zu sehen. Alleine nur mit den Augen hinzusehen, reicht vollkommen aus. Und (man mag es kaum glauben) die Performance ist besser, dank des Eye-Trackings und DFR. Ich spiele im 72 Hz Modus. Wenn gewünscht, kann ich gerne versuchen ein paar ordentliche "Durch die Linsen" Fotos zu machen, um zu zeigen, dass ich mit meinem Setup keine großen Unterschiede zu dem habe, als das, was andere am Monitor sehen. Persönlich würde ich nie wieder ein Headset ohne Local Dimming und Eye Tracking kaufen. Der Unterschied in Sachen Farbbrillanz, Schwarzwert und der Performance-Vorteil sind einfach viel zu groß. Aber, und das muss man sagen, es ist verdammt teuer (meine Hardware sieht man unten). Eine 4090 ist für meine Einstellungen dann schon Pflicht. Noch besser wäre ein 5090. Meine derzeitigen Einstellungen in DCS, mit denen ich flüssig spielen kann (72 Hz). Wenn gewünscht, kann ich mehr Informationen dazu teilen. null Tipp, falls jemand Probleme mit zu viel Helligkeit (weißes "Glühen") mit der Crystal in DCS Nacht-Missionen hat. Edit "local_dimming_black_level" in C:\Users\nutzername\AppData\Local\Pimax\runtime\profile.json auf einen Wert größer 0.0 (bei mir reichte 0.001). null

Hi, I have a Problem with the side movement of the new Pilot Body. In 99 % of all times, the upper body is moving in the opposite direction as I do in "RL" (VR). The body of the pilot always moves as If I would like to look downside or behind downside. Even if I am only glancing behind me over the wing, the shoulder of the Pilot Body is moving to the side I'm looking at. In my home cockpit I do the opposite and move my shoulder out of my view (looking right behind me, right shoulder going back to the left, left shoulder is moving forward to the right). My upper body is moving in a circle line in such a way, that my shoulder wouldn't obscure my line of sight. The only time I move my shoulders, like the current F16-C Pilot do, is when I try to look "underneath" the fuselage (down/down and behind). It would be nice if we could stop that shoulder movement, which, I think, is mostly wrong (in VR) / does the exact opposite I do in my home cockpit. Not to understand me wrong, I love the new Pilot Body, but the scripted movement is an immersion breaker for me. Currently, if I look "over my shoulder" like in RL I always can see my shoulder and directly into the neck part of the F16 Pilot Body. In RL I wouldn't see even a part of my shoulder and for sure I couldn't see into my open Body from above. The same if I am looking down to the switches. In RL the Pilot would move the shoulder out of the line of sight and not try to obscure the view even more with shoving his shoulder into the direction he wants to look at. I would say the movement is exactly the opposite of how it should be in 99 of 100 times, the shoulder should move out of the line of sight and not into the line of sight. So is it possible to stop that "wrong" behavior without disabling the Pilot Body? Or even better, is there a plan to change this behavior, so it would fit better with the real upper body movement of a Pilot?

Hi, it would be nice if you could show us your settings (a picture says more than 1000 words). I have to enable NS, start DCS, start a mission, recenter, and restart DCS. After that, NS is working. Will try the Tool @jcenzano posted.

If you don't like the thread, then just close it, you have the power to do that. But the way you got in here is, to put it nicely, was |-not-| nice. That was really below the belt.

Hm, that sounds as if several USB devices are sharing a signal port and there are problems with recognition. First, remove all USB devices except for the mouse, keyboard, and throttle. If the throttle then works correctly, connect all other USB devices one by one and see if the behavior changes and with which device. Are all drivers installed? Deactivate the device SW, so you can be sure, there isn't a conflict coming from that part.

Ich habe das AVA-Modul in Betrieb. Das schöne ist, man kann es wirklich so einstellen, dass in einem großen Bereich in der Mitte keine Federwirkung mehr vorhanden ist, diese aber nach außen hin wieder greift. Für das Helifliegen ist der schon richtig gut, auch ohne Verlängerung. Persönlich hätte ich mir gewünscht, dass man das Feintuning der Federkraft über Drehregler außen am Gehäuse machen kann. Ich werde mir noch Inbusschlüssel entsprechend modifizieren, sodass ich mit ein paar Umdrehungen am Stellrad das ganze vom Heli- zum Jetstick switchen kann. Ständig den Inbusschlüssel stecken zu müssen, und nicht mehr zu wissen, wie viele Umdrehungen das nun links oder rechts waren, ist mir zu anstrengend. Das schöne ist, dass der Stick wirklich keinerlei "Springpunkte" hat, an denen es haken könnte. Mit den Platten für die Jet-Konfiguration und einer weichen Einstellung in der Mitte, hat man sogar bei den Warbirds ein gutes Gefühl, wenn man zum Ende der Ruderausschläge kommt. Da wird der Widerstand noch mal um einiges größer. Natürlich kein Vergleich mit einem FFB-Stick, aber bisher bin ich zufrieden.

Same for me yesterday. The "hot air" boresighting is mostly not on target (TGP Auto, WPN (MAV) Pre). There is a strange behavior if the missile is looking directly at the target (pinpoint), and I use TMS up short (Point Track Handoff to the MAV in Pre Mode), it's always switching to another target, like someone wants to fool me. It's always the nearest target to the plane (down sight). Both targets are T55, hot. Mission Quick Action, Sinai, Weapon Test. Looks like the logic of the missile lock always looks for the nearest / hottest /most visible target no matter the TGP is looking at and handoff a special target. It feels like it simply doesn't matter there is a TGP Handoff. If I slew the MAV manually, the target will get locked. Auto Handoff doesn't work in 9 of 10 tries. My thoughts for what the TGP Point Track should be good for: If too many targets are close together, the TGP Auto Handoff with Point Track forces the MAV to lock the TGP target, even other targets are more/better "visible" / more "yummy". The MAV should try to look at the marked point and should do all to lock the object at that specific point, if it's visible. Right now, the MAV behaves like it doesn't matter if the TGP is doing a Point Track handoff. The current TGP acts like there is only an area track and point track doesn't work.

One or two days ago, on YouTube, Mover did a comparison between the F16-C and the F/A-18 in all aspects. There are pros and cons. In a dogfight with an F/A-18 (mostly Super Hornets, not so good in BFM) he never lost sitting in an F16-C (he said). In RL the F16-C has a much better thrust to weight ratio than the F/A-18. The weak point of the F/A-18 is the bad acceleration once she gets slow. In DCS, I have the feeling the T/W ratio of the F/A-18 is much better than in RL. You can "ride" the F/A-18 on the thrusters, and even you are slow, I feel one accelerate nearly as good as the F16-C. If I am low at speed with the F16-C it feels like she needs ages to get speed back. The other way around with the F/A-18. Never got the feeling there is no acceleration, no matter which AOA is shown. My thoughts about this: In DCS, if both Pilots have an equal skill level, the F/A-18 can't lose if the F16-C driver isn't one of the lucky ones. There was an update a few weeks in the past, with that the Hornet became a real BFM Monster (not to say she wasn't that before ;)). It's not even possible to get too slow with the DCS Hornet anymore. Before this special update, I'd never had a problem to fight an Ace Hornet AI in a BFM fight. After that patch, I had to fight like I did before against a real player. And now, I have no chance against my friend in PvP if he flies an F/A-18 and I the F16-C. The most annoying part is, he mostly didn't even need to override the limiter. That's real frustrating, because now I can ride the G-limit much better with the F16-C. The F16-C became better, but the F/A-18 much better. That's life. My gut feeling: BFM = Nothing beats the F/A-18 (DCS planes, no mods).